Heuristic Evaluation In UX

How I Review Contracts (Without Wasting Hours) Most people read contracts line by line from the start. I don’t. That’s the slowest way to catch red flags. Instead, I reverse-engineer them to spot risks first. Step 1: Get the Big Picture – What’s this contract actually about? Who has more power in the deal? This tells me what to watch out for. Step 2: Find the Risks – I jump straight to liability and termination clauses. Can my client walk away if things go south? Are they taking on unfair risks? Step 3: Follow the Money – I check payment terms, penalties, and refunds to make sure there are no vague or sneaky conditions. Step 4: Watch for Dispute Traps – Jurisdiction and arbitration clauses can quietly make legal battles expensive or one-sided. I flag them early. Step 5: Dig Into the Fine Print – Standard clauses like indemnification, non-compete, and amendments often hold surprises. I don’t skim them. Step 6: Read Line by Line – Only after flagging key issues do I read everything carefully, making sure nothing slips through. This method saves time, catches hidden risks faster, and makes contract review way more efficient. Want me to break down a contract using this? Let’s talk.

Last week, I reviewed 3 papers in a row that all had the same problem: Good data. Solid methods. No visible novelty. Not because the work wasn’t original, but because the authors assumed the originality would somehow “speak for itself”. It never does. If reviewers and editors need 20 minutes to guess what is new about your paper, they will almost always conclude: “Lack of novelty. Reject.” Here is a simple structure you can use to fix this in your next manuscript: 1. One-sentence contribution (yes, just one) If you cannot explain your contribution in one sentence, the reviewer will not do it for you. Ask yourself: “What does this paper do that no published paper has already done?” Write that sentence. Put a version of it in the abstract and in the last paragraph of the introduction. 2. Make the gap painfully clear Don’t write: “Few studies have examined X.” Write something like: What we think we know. What we don’t know (exactly what is missing, wrong, or unclear). Why this gap is a problem for the field. If the gap is vague, your contribution will look vague. 3. Name the type of novelty Most early-career researchers actually have one of these: Contextual: Testing known theory in a new context or population. Methodological: Using a new data source or technique that reveals what others could not see. Conceptual: Clarifying, extending, or slightly challenging an existing idea. Say which one you are doing and show how. 4. Use contribution language, not “what we did” language Weak: “We analyzed 500 surveys and ran regressions.” Stronger: “We show that the X–Y relationship reverses in setting Z, which existing theory does not predict. This refines how we understand X in volatile environments.” Same work. Different framing. Completely different response from reviewers. 5. Echo the novelty again in the Discussion The Discussion is not just “here are the results again”. It is where you say, clearly: What changes for the field because of your findings. Which assumptions need updating. Where the next person should pick up the conversation. If your final section could have been written before you ran the study, you are not explaining novelty. Your research can be novel, but invisible. Your job is to make the originality impossible to miss. #science #research #scientist #publishing #academia #professor #highereducation #researchservices #novelty #thesis #phd

I’ve reviewed over 100 games in the past few years. Here’s my step-by-step process for reviewing a new game: 𝟭. 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛 𝗖𝗢𝗠𝗣𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗦 𝗙𝗜𝗥𝗦𝗧 Before playing, I focus on understanding the competition: • Read user reviews in app stores • Play 3-5 competitor games • Take screenshots of key moments • 𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘇𝗲 𝗸𝗲𝘆 𝗮𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀: —— Gameplay tempo – is it fast or slow? —— Monetization strategies – how are purchases introduced? —— Engagement hooks – what makes players return? —— Strengths and weaknesses 𝟮. 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗬 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗚𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗧𝗪𝗜𝗖𝗘 Each playthrough serves a specific purpose: 𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 (𝟭 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗿) – Focus on the big picture: • General feel – Does it engage from the start? • User flow – How intuitive is it for a new player? • Core loop – Do main mechanics fit together? • Goals – Are short- and long-term objectives clear? • Progression – Is there a sense of steady improvement? • Gameplay tempo – Fast or too slow? • Monetization – Do I want to pay and why? 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 (𝟮 𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀) – Dive deeper: • Onboarding – Is the tutorial clear? • Game mechanics – Do they evolve or get repetitive? • Boosters – Impactful yet balanced? • Level design – Does it introduce new challenges? • Art and UI – Consistent and intuitive? • Monetization – When offers and ads appear? What do they offer? • Game balance – Fair resource flow? • Technical aspects – Bugs or glitches? • Social mechanics – Are they well-integrated? • Narrative – Is it interesting and well-paced? • Live operations – Which events and tasks appear, and when? → Throughout both sessions, I take detailed screenshots. → I also read user reviews here to confirm my impressions. 𝟯. 𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗟𝗬𝗭𝗘 𝗚𝗔𝗠𝗘 𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗥𝗜𝗖𝗦 Once the playthroughs are done, I review key metrics: • Retention ↳ How well does the game retain players (Day 1, Day 7, etc.)? • Engagement ↳ Average playtime, daily levels completed • Onboarding completion ↳ Tutorial completion rate • Level funnel and churn ↳ Points where players quit • Monetization ↳ How is revenue split between IAP and ads? The distribution between sources? • Difficulty ↳ Win Rate, game difficulty • Game balance ↳ Currency sources and sinks This data shows if the game meets benchmarks or needs changes. 𝟰. 𝗗𝗘𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘𝗥 𝗦𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗘𝗗 𝗙𝗘𝗘𝗗𝗕𝗔𝗖𝗞 • No vague comments like “the game is too easy.” ↳ Instead, explain why it feels easy, e.g. “𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 1 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵.” • Go beyond criticism, offer solutions: ↳ “𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘢𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘓𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘮𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” • Provide examples from competitors • Prioritize feedback by urgency, attach screenshots ↳ Helps developers have a clear roadmap

100 lines of code: reviewed in 10 minutes. 1000 lines of code: reviewed never. Code reviews exist to catch bugs, improve maintainability, and help teams write better software together. But most engineers treat them like assignments to pass instead of collaborative checkpoints. That mindset kills the process before it starts. ➧ When you're submitting a PR: 1. Keep it small Aim for 10-100 lines of code per pull request. Past 100 lines, reviewers start skimming. Past 500, they stop caring entirely. Large PRs are harder to review, take longer to approve, and make it nearly impossible to catch real bugs. Break your work into isolated, logical chunks. Yes, it's more work upfront. But it ships faster. 2. Write a description Give context. Always. Your reviewer might be on a different team, in a different timezone, or new to the codebase. Don't make them guess what you're solving. If you're fixing a bug, explain what broke and link to the ticket. If it's a visual change, add before/after screenshots. If you ran a script that generated code, paste the exact command you used. Context turns a confusing diff into a clear story. 3. Leave preemptive comments If part of your diff looks unrelated to the main logic, explain it before your reviewer asks. "Fixed a typing issue here while working on the main feature." "This file got reformatted by the linter, no logic changes." These small clarifications save back-and-forth and show you're thinking about the reviewer's experience. ➧ When you're reviewing a PR: 1. Be overwhelmingly clear Unclear comments leave people stuck. If you're making a suggestion but don't feel strongly, say it: "This could be cleaner, but use your judgment." If you're just asking a question, mark it: "Sanity check, is this intentional? Non-blocking, just curious." Over-communicate your intent. Especially with remote teams or people you don't know well. 2. Establish approval standards with your team Decide as a team when to approve vs. block a PR. At Amazon and now at Nielsen, we approve most PRs even with 10+ comments because we trust teammates to address feedback. The only exception: critical bugs that absolutely can't go to production. Without clear standards, people feel blocked by style comments and approvals feel arbitrary. Talk to your team. Set the rules. Stick to them. 3. Know when to go offline Some conversations don't belong in PR comments. If the code needs a major rewrite, if there's a design disagreement, or if you're about to write a paragraph, stop. Ping your teammate directly. Have a quick call. Save everyone time. Leave a comment like "Let's discuss this offline" so they know you're not ignoring it.

Struggling to turn piles of papers into a strong, insightful literature review? This 5 C’s of writing a literature review (Cite, Compare, Contrast, Critique, Connect) narrow it down well. But how do you actually do these well in practice? Here’s how I teach my PhD mentees to move beyond theory and into action: 1. CITE: Be strategic, not exhaustive. ✅ Don’t just collect papers, curate them. Prioritize studies that shape the field, influence your thinking or set up your argument. 📌 Use citation mapping tools (like Connected Papers or ResearchRabbit to visually trace foundational works and identify key influencers fast. 2. COMPARE: Patterns matter more than papers. ✅ Group studies by themes: methods, theories, findings, not by author name or publication date. 📌 Create a simple comparison matrix in Excel, SciSpace or Anara to spot patterns across studies. You’ll see trends (and gaps) much faster this way. 3. CONTRAST: Don’t be afraid to question the giants. ✅ Highlight conflicting evidence, contradictory findings or evolving theories. This shows depth. 📌 Always ask yourself: Why might these studies disagree? Sample? Method? Context? Theory? This leads to stronger insights. 4. CRITIQUE: Not all papers deserve equal weight. ✅ Evaluate studies for quality, not just relevance. Weak studies make weak foundations. 📌 Apply a simple checklist when reading: clarity of aim, appropriateness of method, robustness of findings. Highlight these in your notes for easy reference. 5. CONNECT: Your review needs to lead somewhere. ✅ Your literature review is a bridge to your research question. 📌 After reviewing each group of studies, explicitly write: “What does this mean for my study?” This helps transition from review to rationale. A literature review is not about how much you’ve read. It’s about how clearly you can show your reader: 📍 What’s known 📍 What’s contested 📍 What’s missing 📍 And why your study matters PS: Which of these 5 C’s do YOU find the trickiest to apply? Share in the comments REPOST this to help others.

A major revise-and-resubmit is not a repair job. It means rebuilding. When reviewers flag major problems in the logic of the argument, they are offering a chance to rethink and rebuilt the paper’s reasoning in a better form, not just polish the text. I see many papers coming back where major revision requests are treated as a sort of patching exercise Some new citations added as sprinkles, a paragraph here and there, some small framing tweaks, very little rewriting, some claims rephrased without changing what the paper actually argues. The result is that manuscripts become thicker and thicker but not stronger. To be clear: some R&Rs are mainly about minor issues related to clarity, reporting, positioning, or the need for some complementary analyses to add strength to something that is already strong. In those cases, targeted fixes can be exactly what is needed. But when reviews point to major issues, cosmetic fixes do not work. Some examples: a missing contribution, weak theoretical framing, misalignment between theory and evidence, an argument that does not follow throughout the paper, conclusions that are not supported by the findings. With patches we add bulk but not coherence. You need rethinking and reorganising. If you receive an R&R that raises logic or contribution concerns, this what I generally recommend: • 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝘀. Read and re-read the reviewers’ reports together, not separately. Look for the underlying concerns that connect them. That is usually where the biggest revision tasks are • 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗲𝘄𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 Refresh and expand your ideas. • 𝗖𝗵𝗲𝗰𝗸 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗴𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 You might be tempted to start editing sections, but better to resist. Verify the core argument first. Clarify in one paragraph what the paper claims and what will be new and why. • 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆. It could be the introduction, theory, framing, or even the order of the sections might change to support the revised contribution. Or everything. The objective should be to tighten alignment end-to-end. Make sure theory, methods, findings, and contribution clearly support the revised story, and are connected. • 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆. You are dealing with major revisions so better to provide a clear, point-by-point response showing how the manuscript improved conceptually and structurally, not just where text was added. Avoid replying with long answers that only means: “Yes, we did what you asked.” Engage in the discussion, even if your point is a rebuttal. In the end, a strong revision feels like a clearer paper, not a longer one. _______ ♻ If you find this helpful, repost to inspire colleagues in your network

𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐧 𝐅𝐏&𝐀/𝐅𝐁𝐏 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐭 Oya, Oya, before I come into your feed like an FP&A ghost, let me apologize for going quiet for weeks. Juggling work and showing up here has been real. I am sorry, okay? I am no soothsayer but if you started your budget process in time (like I told you to), you should be deep in budget consolidation/review. Still explaining your template to departments? Meet me at 12pm at ANY location of your choice so we square off! Budget reviews can be messy, but I’ve refined a sustainable, foolproof approach. Here’s how I tackle mine: 1. Start with the story not the spreadsheet Ask: “What’s the story this budget is trying to tell?” Your budget should show: >> What’s driving growth next year? >> What changed vs. last year? >> What’s the business betting on? If the narrative doesn’t line up with the numbers, pause first. 2. Benchmark against reality Compare submissions against: >> Last year actuals (and YTD run-rate). >> Targets in the strategic plan. >> Peer business units or competitors. Patterns expose stories or lies instantly. Sudden jumps should have reasonable drivers. I often highlight top 10 movements (positive or negative) and ask for a 2-line explanation. 3. Challenge the logic ALWAYS Solid FP&A persons review operating drivers before the numbers Ask these: “What volume growth are you assuming?” “What’s the price per unit or per customer?” “How does this compare to actual trends?” “What happens if conversion or retention drops by 5%?” 4. Review headcount! Check for: >> Alignment with HR’s manpower plan. >> Realistic hiring timelines (people assume January start; in reality, it’s April). >> Salary inflation and grade structure accuracy. >> Fringe benefits, taxes, pensions. People forget these. 5. Validate cost drivers Every line item must have a driver or owner. If someone can’t explain what drives the cost, it’s suspect. Ask: >> “What activity drives this spend?” >> “What KPI does this expense support?” >> “If volume doesn’t happen, will this cost still be incurred?” 6. Run ratio checks: Ratios catch what Excel hides. Key ones: >> Staff cost / Total Opex → sudden jumps = check payroll or hiring plan. >> Cost of Sales / Revenue → margin control. >> CapEx / Revenue growth → are we investing enough to justify growth? If ratios move dramatically year-to-year, you either discovered an opportunity or a problem. 7. Challenge the Timing of Spend Budgets assume linearity but life doesn’t. Ask: >> “When will this project start?” >> “When will spend hit?” >> “When does benefit start showing up?” “Q1 spend for Q4 results,” is not a budget; that’s wishful thinking. 8. Look for duplication and missing costs Cross-functional teams often double-budget: >> IT & Product: cloud costs >> Marketing & Brand: campaigns >> HR & Admin: training Scan for similar descriptions, vendors, GL codes, and check for missing costs (shared services, depreciation, licenses). Hope this helps!

Elevate Your Literature Reviews: A Systematic, Scientific Approach Literature reviews are the backbone of rigorous research—yet many scholars rely on narrative or cursory approaches, missing opportunities for depth, replicability, and impact. The Problem: ❌ Non-systematic reviews lack rigor and reproducibility. ❌ Over-reliance on subjective synthesis limits objectivity. ❌ Missed insights from bibliometric trends and gaps. The Solution:A structured, scientific methodology for literature reviews. Key Steps for a High-Impact Review 1. Systematic Investigation - Define clear inclusion/exclusion criteria - Use transparent search protocols (databases, keywords) - Document screening processes (PRISMA flow diagrams) 2. Bibliographic Mapping - Visualise trends via co-citation, co-authorship networks - Identify knowledge clusters (VOSviewer, CiteSpace) - Highlight emerging vs. saturated research areas 3. Replicable Framework - Method section must allow reproducibility - Audit trail for decision-making (why certain studies were included/excluded) 4. Career-Stage Adaptability - PhD Students:Build foundational knowledge efficiently - Senior Researchers: Publish authoritative, field-defining reviews Why This Matters ✔ Rigor– Transparent methods enhance credibility. ✔ Discovery – Bibliometrics reveal hidden patterns. ✔ Efficiency-– Systematic approaches save time. 📌 Pro Tip: Start with a scoping review before diving deep—it helps refine research questions. 💬 How do YOU ensure rigor in your literature reviews? Share your strategies below! ♻️ Repost to help peers improve their review methods. 🔖 Follow Muhammad Haroon Shoukat for more research methodology insights.

The first time I was invited to review for a highly prestigious journal, I panicked a little. I was in my third year of PhD. So I did what many of us do when we don’t want to get things wrong: I read several strong papers on peer review, I watched trainings on the Elsevier Research Academy, I studied how top reviews were structured, I spoke to my supervisor for guidance and I approached the manuscript meticulously. A few weeks later, I received a recognized reviewer badge🎉. Then another invitation came from the same journal a few months later. And then I realized something uncomfortable. I had forgotten the exact process I used the first time. So I had to start again – re-reading guidance documents, revisiting best practices and reconstructing my approach. It was time-consuming. That’s when I decided to create a clear, step-by-step peer review guide that I could use every single time. I’ve been using it ever since. I know there is no single “correct” way to review a paper. But this guide is built on the structured approaches used by high-quality reviewers, including recipients of Excellent Reviewer awards across disciplines. I believe it can help PhD students, first-time reviewers, early-career researchers and anyone who wants to produce rigorous, fair, and impactful reviews. And here’s something I wish someone had emphasized earlier: Reviewing is not just service, it is professional development. When done well, peer review helps you to sharpen your critical thinking, recognize methodological weaknesses faster, improve your own manuscript writing, understand what editors value and build credibility in your field. Here’s the core structure I follow: 👉 Before accepting to review, ask yourself: ✔ Do I have the right expertise? ✔ Do I have enough time? ✔ Are there any conflicts of interest? ✔ Can I maintain confidentiality? 👉 During the review (Read more than once): 1️ First read – Big picture What is the research question? Why does it matter? Is it publishable in principle? 2️ Second read – Deep evaluation Are the methods sound? Is the data sufficient? Are the conclusions supported? Also evaluate rigor, ethics, clarity and structure. Clearly separate major vs minor issues. 👉 When writing your review: ✔️ Short summary and overall assessment ✔️ Major issues (publishability-level problems) ✔️ Minor issues (improvement suggestions) ✔️ Clear, aligned recommendation Peer review is not just gatekeeping. It’s stewardship of science. A good review is rigorous, fair, constructive, specific, evidence-based and respectful. I’ve attached the full step-by-step guide to the post. I hope it supports your next review invitation. If you’re an experienced reviewer, what advice would you give someone reviewing for the first time? If you just received your first review invitation today, what would help you feel confident to begin? #EmpoweringEarlyCareerProfessionals #PeerReview #PhDLife #EarlyCareerResearcher #AcademicLife #ResearchIntegrity

In the last 11 years of my career, I’ve participated in code reviews almost daily. I’ve sat through 100s of review sessions with seniors and colleagues. Here’s how to make your code reviews smoother, faster and easier: 1. Start with Small, Clear Commits    - Break your changes into logical, manageable chunks. This makes it easier for reviewers to focus and catch errors quickly. 2. Write Detailed PR Descriptions    - Always explain the “why” behind the changes. This provides context and helps reviewers understand your thought process. 3. Self-Review Before Submitting    - Take the time to review your own code before submitting. You'll catch a lot of your own mistakes and improve your review quality. 4. Ask for Specific Feedback    - Don’t just ask for a “review”—be specific. Ask for feedback on logic, structure, or potential edge cases. 5. Don’t Take Feedback Personally    - Code reviews are about improving the code, not critiquing the coder. Be open to constructive criticism and use it to grow. 6. Prioritize Readability Over Cleverness    - Write code that’s easy to understand, even if it’s less “fancy.” Simple, clear code is easier to maintain and review. 7. Focus on the Big Picture    - While reviewing, look at how changes fit into the overall system, not just the lines of code. Think about long-term maintainability. 8. Encourage Dialogue    - Reviews shouldn’t be a one-way street. Engage in discussions and collaborate with reviewers to find the best solution. 9. Be Explicit About Non-Blocking Comments    - Mark minor suggestions as “nitpicks” to avoid confusion. This ensures critical issues get addressed first. 10. Balance Praise and Criticism    - Acknowledge well-written code while offering suggestions for improvement. Positive feedback encourages better work. 11. Always Follow Up    - If you request changes or leave feedback, follow up to make sure the feedback is understood and implemented properly. It shows you’re invested in the process. -- P.S: What would you add from your experience?